ipl-logo

Acceptance And Complications Of The Exclusionary Rule

2659 Words11 Pages

The term paper will circulate around the Exclusionary Rule’s purpose, applications, limitations, and complications alongside with landmark cases pertaining to each component. The Exclusionary Rule is a legal principle stating that evidence obtained in violation of a person's Constitutional rights, such as the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, may not be used against them in court. This is significant in understanding how the Supreme Court utilizes the U.S Constitution to infer the writer’s intention as to what should be permissible today. The purpose portion of the essay will examine why the rule was formally integrated in American law, and how judges can use it to infer what the writers of the Constitution …show more content…

Complications of the Exclusionary rule include cases in which the Exclusionary Rule cannot be applied to, in light of certain special circumstances. One example of complications is the “Good Faith” exceptions in which honest mistakes were made in the seizure of evidence, therefore, making them admissible. The complications portion of the essay will also cover the arguments against the Exclusionary rule, as it complicates police procedures, integrity, and liability. The real world cases portion will focus on significant cases where the Exclusionary Rule was related to. The purpose of the Exclusionary Rule is to prevent law enforcement from violating the individual rights of citizens and misconduct. By allowing evidence to become inadmissible under circumstances, officers will be discouraged from engaging in illegal or unconstitutional behavior. Author Jenia Iontcheva Turner explains in "The purposes and functions of exclusionary rules: a comparative overview” that: “In adversarial systems, exclusion can be based on the logic that a party which obtains a piece of evidence illegally should not be allowed to benefit from the fruits of the violation” (Turner 256). If police were able to obtain …show more content…

Creators of the rule consider what the framers of the Constitution intended, and how this would come into play with intricate circumstances today. The most notable amendments concerning the Exclusionary Rule are The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. These amendments have been used to shape the creation of this protecting rule in order to deter unlawful authority use. They will continue to serve as a basis for future developments surrounding the controversy and flaws in the Exclusionary Rule. It is important to acknowledge landmark cases such as Mapp v. Ohio in determining the importance of safeguarding individual rights and privacy. It can be applied most notably in cases such as this one; however, it can also be limited by the exclusions brought up as well. Like all laws, it has its own limitations and complications; therefore, it is important for lawmakers to determine what was intended for this rule. It is an important aspect of American criminal procedures and will continue to be used, referred to, and discussed in many more cases to

Show More
Related
316 Words | 2 Pages

In Wolf vs. Colorado the Supreme Court had decided that it did not. Illegally obtained evidence could be used in trials because the 4th amendment did not apply to states. The principle became known as the exclusionary

Read More
853 Words | 4 Pages

custodial interrogations do not need to be recorded to satisfy the due process requirements in the United States. Moreover, there were seven police officers that testified one of which was not even part of their Department so it stands to reason that it is unlikely that seven officers would attempt to circumvent the law. However, it should be noted It is believed that there should be a remedy to the law as the recording of evidence allows for a quicker and more effective examination of the interrogations and better protect the rights of citizens. “An exclusionary rule is a drastic remedy. I believe such a drastic remedy should be applied only after a full hearing of all the policy implications and with adequate notice to law enforcement.

Read More
2406 Words | 10 Pages

Supreme Court also ruled that any state officials that obtain evidence by the process of illegal seizure or searches may not admit the evidence into criminal trials. The Fourth Amendment protects the rights of citizens from unreasonable seizures and searches (Pearson Education). This decision by the U.S. Supreme Court enforces the exclusionary rule of search and seizures to the all levels of the government and limits the powers that police officers have over citizens by protecting their Fourth Amendment rights (Oyez Project). This case and the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court has redefined the rights of citizens accused of crimes. The decision is controversial because it makes it difficult to determine when or how the exclusionary rule is applied.

Read More
475 Words | 2 Pages

The Weeks v United States case was the Supreme Court basis in determining to incorporate the Fourth Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause and apply the exclusionary rule in state cases. In this essay, I am going to discuss the reason why the Supreme Court determine that the exclusionary rule should apply to the state police activity. Prior to the case of Weeks v United States, the state police activity “were not limited in their conduct by the Fourth Amendment” (Ingram p.81) and the exclusionary rule of Fourth Amendments illegal search and seizure only applies to federal law enforcement officers. Basically, it means that state law enforcement officials can illegally search and seized criminal activity evidence and court don’t prohibit the use of illegally obtained evidence in the trial court.

Read More
1292 Words | 6 Pages

D. Ohio’s Evid. R. 403 Unlike its federal counterpart, the Ohio evidentiary rule 403 is separated into two sections: (a) mandatory exclusion and (b) discretionary exclusion. Even relevant evidence “is not admissible” when the probative value is substantially outweighed by evidence that (i) is unfairly prejudicial, (ii) confuses the issues, or (iii) misleads the jury. This clear language promulgated by the Ohio rule-makers establishes greater protections for defendants, and strips trial courts of their discretion in certain evidentiary matters.

Read More
285 Words | 2 Pages

The exclusionary rule can make evidence inadmissible in the court of law if that evidence was illegally obtained by a police officer. This protects an individual from unlawful searches and serves as an effective deterrent for police misconduct. One could argue that a mistake on the officer’s behalf should not result in the release of a criminal. This assertion would be reasonable if these fourth amendment violations committed by police officers were honest mistakes. Unfortunately, some illegal evidence is found because of deliberate misconduct by the police.

Read More
563 Words | 3 Pages

In this period, the Fourth Amendment was strongly upheld along with the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule is made so that police couldn't use any illegally-obtained evidence to convict a defendant. Chief Justice Earl Warren brought the exclusionary rule from local to state-level in the court case of Mapp v. Ohio. In this case, officers forced their way into a home without a search warrant because they suspected Dollree Mapp of hiding an alleged bomber, where they collected evidence so they could use it against him in court. The exclusionary rule was enforced, making none of the evidence found applicable to be used against Mapp in court.

Read More
1872 Words | 8 Pages

41. Mapp v. Ohio (1961): The Supreme Court ruling that decided that the fourth amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures must be extended to the states. If there is no probable cause or search warrant issued legally, the evidence found unconstitutionally will be inadmissible in the courtroom and not even considered when pressing charges. The exclusionary rule, in this case, is a right that will restrict the states and not just the federal government, including the states in more of the federal rights as outlined in the Constitution.

Read More
675 Words | 3 Pages

Although, the decision tested the true meaning of the 4th amendment, it also provided clarity as well as security for the men and women who serve in law enforcement. The ruling allowed law enforcement to legally “Frisk” a subject, thereby providing law enforcement officers the opportunity to protect themselves. Furthermore, it is through these reasonable stops and pat downs that thousands of arrests are made for illegal activity. For example, the New York Police Department through the increase in police enforcement, along with what is referred to as “Stop and Frisk”, saw a 80% reduction in the homicide rate, therefore protecting and saving thousands of lives through this court

Read More
992 Words | 4 Pages

The supreme court voted 6-3 in favor of Mapp. Five justices ruled that the state needed to exclude evidence found without a search warrant. The majority opinion applied the exclusionary rule to the states. The exclusionary rule requires courts to exclude from criminal trials evidence that was accessed in violation of the constitution’s ban on unreasonable searches. The majority opinion was based on many earlier decisions that had started the process of employing federal constitutional protections to state criminal justice systems.

Read More
291 Words | 2 Pages

Amendment IV is still used in modern times. Most often, Amendment IV comes into play during criminal trials, because in the 1950s, Supreme Court ruled that any evidence obtained an an unlawful search are ineligible to appear in court. However, this is very controversial because the illegal evidence might prove that the criminal is guilty, but the defendant will escape without punishment since it cannot be used. In addition, Amendment IV, in modern years, has been challenged and discussed often because of many contentious search and seizure incidents involving government or police. Recently, the government has been gathering information on American citizens’ Internet and telephone use in an effort to intercept terrorist activity online and over

Read More
216 Words | 1 Pages

The exclusionary rule has limited the law enforcement ability to invade people's privacy; it has resulted in the overturning of convictions and following the release of criminals and also undermined criminal investigation and potential

Read More
493 Words | 2 Pages

Ohio (1961), the Supreme Court trusted that the Constitution charged the exclusionary rule as a remaking of a Fourth Amendment infringement. They saw the truths of the sample, the exclusionary rule which was the assurance of somebody 's protection furthermore required by the Due Process which portrayed the Fourteenth Amendment. The rule stated three purposes by the Mapp Court, the right given by the constitution and stated that when police admitted that they were at fault, judges then extended the violations in court. This would stop misconduct for negligence since the case of Mapp the Supreme Court has seized out many exceptions to the exclusionary rule. I would agree with exclusionary rule, searches are easy to get permission from most defendants.

Read More
650 Words | 3 Pages

The unresolved questions that attend the exclusionary rule can serve as catalysts of law that could foster harmonious relations among federal and state governments in their common responsibility of balancing individual freedom against governmental regulation and restraint.” In addition, in her Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology article, Expanding Exclusionary Rule Exceptions and Contracting Fourth Amendment Protection, Professor Heather A. Jackson states, “In 1961, in Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution mandated the exclusionary rule as a remedy of a Fourth Amendment violation in state proceedings. The Mapp Court examined the foundation of the precedent of Wolf, which came to the opposite conclusion, and ultimately

Read More
427 Words | 2 Pages

Back in 1975, there was a major case called, Payton V. New York. Theodore Payton was suspected of murdering a gas station manager, they found evidence within his home that connected him with the crime. What caused the problem was the fact New York had a law that allowed unwarranted searches if the person was a suspect. Based off the oral argument presented by Oyez, the police said it didn't count as the evidence because it was in public view when entering the home. It had to be appealed before it was determined as unconstitutional.

Read More

More about Acceptance And Complications Of The Exclusionary Rule

Related Topics

Open Document